Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

The key to this article/survey is:1) Companies have a drug test policy - it does not mean they "do" it2) Those companies that do drug testing do it as part of "pre-employment" - which is what Drug Free Workplace regulation states and is allowable (See my previous multiple posts in this thread) - 3) The "survey" says that 84% of respondants said employees SHOULD undergo testing - not that they do - also, it is a survey of OPINIONS, not facts -thus, my dear Skeebs, this does not support that employers ARE actually doing drug tests after a person is hired (as, like was stated previously, this would open them up to potential legal action, unless it meets DFWP rules)

So, you may want to hold off on playing the lotto.

Excerpt from article:Jobseekers hoping to find a job in today’s rough economy should be prepared for a drug test as well as an interview during the pre-employment background screening process.

A new study by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) found that three-quarters of companies polled had a drug test policy, and almost all (95 percent) of those companies said that pre-employment screening – or "prior to hire" – drug tests were the most common type, a figure that increased to 100% in organizations with 10,000 or more workers.

The Drug Screening Pulse Survey – conducted by i4cp in July of 2009 with almost 300 respondents – also revealed that among companies that did drug tests during pre-employment background screening, almost half (47%) required that the test be conducted within four days of the applicant’s acceptance of a position. In addition, the majority of respondents (84 percent) said the entire workforce should undergo drug tests, and more than half (61 percent) of the companies were satisfied with their in-house or vendor-administrated drug test programs, according to the study findings.

You keep harping on the random drug testing. I never once said it ran at 80%. I said 80% of companies do drug test for employment. You also agreed yesterday during our conversation that pre employment drug testing probably does run higher than 80% in Florida.

Read the article again. It says roughly 3 out of 4 do, and 84% of respondents say they should. You do know the difference right? I can give you other links that suggest the number is even higher, but for whatever reason, I fear you will once again read the data incorrectly.

As I told you my own experience yesterday with OSHA regulations, random drug testing is indeed done. If you want to look at it as something that should be fought in court (theoretically), I'll look at the concrete facts in that almost all cases are not brought forth. Once again, you seemed to agree that for Florida this was most likely the case.

Once again, I can't speak for PA or anywhere else for that matter. But, I do know how it is in Florida and I know this unfortunately through my own failures and experiences from them.

To keep the focus where it should be - Governor Scott signing the law to test recipients of cash benefits under public assistance programs, here is what an ACLU article says about drug testing of public assistance recipients. There should be more than enough data here to show that it isn't just the ACLU that knows this is wrong - but the scientific and medical community.

Also, I stand by everything in my post yesterday - I have always stated that pre-employment testing is allowed under DFWP policies ----- I don't know what part of that you aren't getting. Also, look again at the article you posted and who conducted the survey and who posted the article - this is a company that gets paid to do pre-employment drug testing (I think they may be a little biased). Also, there are SURVEYS and there is RESEARCH and FACTS - surveys are not facts. Surveys, for the most part, are OPINIONS (and we know what they say about opinions).

But anywhoooooo, here is the link to an excellent article - full of actual RESEACH and medical, scientific, and other notable conclusions regarding the effectiveness and legality of testing public assistance recipients:

As for the being given the option of ADAP for a drug-free piss test just show me the cup and I'll be on my way. You can bet your ass that would be some motivation. Show me the bar and tell me how high and my ass would be doing olympic level high jump. No drugs? Sure. No Booze? Fine. No Carbs? OK you sadist. Now please give me my lifesaving medication.

I guess you have little exposure to exactly how many people with HIV have substance abuse issues -- and I'm not talking about recreational activity here, I mean hardcore addiction. Are you willing for these people to forego HIV treatment while they spend 2-3 years getting clean?

I guess you have little exposure to exactly how many people with HIV have substance abuse issues -- and I'm not talking about recreational activity here, I mean hardcore addiction. Are you willing for these people to forego HIV treatment while they spend 2-3 years getting clean?

I was just talking about my personal commitment level in order to ironically, get drugs. Although I've always had trouble understanding addiction as there is very little in life I feel I can't go without. It's always been difficult for me to empathize or sympathize with that level of physical addiction, the best I can relate to it would probably be caffeine. If I don't have caffeine for a couple of days running I feel terrible for a day or two. A pale comparison if ever there were one.

I was just talking about my personal commitment level in order to ironically, get drugs. Although I've always had trouble understanding addiction as there is very little in life I feel I can't go without. It's always been difficult for me to empathize or sympathize with that level of physical addiction, the best I can relate to it would probably be caffeine. If I don't have caffeine for a couple of days running I feel terrible for a day or two. A pale comparison if ever there were one.

Well, that's just swell sweetheart -- but the argument here is about public policy, not your current whims and fancy.

Excerpt from the article:The lawsuit is the fifth one to name Scott as a defendant in his role as governor. The other suits relate to drug-testing state workers, high-speed rail, constitutional amendments over redistricting and an executive order that froze state rules.

I have no intention of following or agreeing with any of the decisions this idiot makes ---- trusting in his decisions or supporting his policies ----- I don't think so, not on this planet, not in this lifetime.

Although I've always had trouble understanding addiction as there is very little in life I feel I can't go without. It's always been difficult for me to empathize or sympathize with that level of physical addiction,

Well, at least in this point in my life, I cannot understand what having ovarian cancer is like. I do know, however, it is a medical disease, just as addiction is, and necessitates treatment, just like addiction does.

Just because your self-righteousness cannot understand what it's like to have writhing pain that would be settled down by a fix, does not mean addiction is not a real disease that, I believe, should afford a person real help.

Logged

I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Also, interesting excerpt from the above article, which supports what I had previously pointed out....(See bold)

Scott had ordered the so-called "suspicion-less" drug tests – so termed because all state employees would be subject to the tests, regardless of whether they were suspected of using drugs and regardless of what job they performed – shortly after he took office. He also successfully urged the Legislature to require drug tests of all new applicants for welfare assistance.

The ACLU challenged the employee testing and is also expected to sue to block testing of welfare recipients. In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Miami last week, the group said no court has upheld drug tests without a reason – such as suspicions of drug use or an employee working in a job that might endanger the public if he or she were impaired.[/u]

Add another lawsuit against Florida's "Governor" Rick Scott to the ever-rising tally -He is being sued by the teacher's union, as are members of the legislature, for voting unilaterally to require state employees to contribute 3% towards retirement beginning July 1, 2011.

I pay into the Florida Retirement System (FRS) as part of my job - and the argument here is that the statute which regulates the FRS specifically states that employees do NOT have to contribute - it has been that was since 1974. So, if the governor and his cronies in the legislature wanted to require the contributions a) they would need to change the statute b) they would need to get union approval as it is part of the collective bargaining agreement of employees and c) they could only impose the change on new employees - not those who in good faith began employment with the state under the premise that the FRS was completely employer funded and regulated by statute.

It basically was the governor's way of balancing the budget by arbitrarily imposing a 3% tax on employees who are part of the Florida Retirement System - without subjecting others to the tax - and directly violating Florida Statutes.

The union is asking that any monies collected (the 3% from state employees) be placed into an interest bearing account until the case is settled - so, that if the state loses - then the employees would get their money back - retroactive and with interest.

The impact of the 3% contribution on my monthly bring home pay is about $120 - and while it is pretax and does go into my retirement - I don't agree with the governor and legislature overstepping their constitutional bounds and unilaterally implementing this in violation of the existing law:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A group of Florida physicians filed a federal lawsuit on Monday seeking to overturn a new state law that limits doctors' ability to ask patients about guns in the home.

The lawsuit, filed in Miami federal court, says the new law is an unconstitutional ban on physicians' free speech and prevents them from counseling patients on firearm safety.

The statute, titled "Privacy of Firearm Owners" and signed into law by Florida's governor last week, prohibits healthcare professionals from asking patients about gun ownership unless the information is relevant to the patient's medical care, safety or the safety of others. The law also bars practitioners from entering the information into a patient's medical record.

"By severely restricting such speech and the ability of physicians to practice such preventative medicine, the Florida statute could result in grievous harm to children, adolescents, adults and the elderly," the lawsuit said.

Lane Wright, press secretary for Florida Governor Rick Scott, said the law defends patients' right to bear arms and protects gun owners from potential discrimination and harassment. The law does not prevent doctors from having medically relevant conversations about guns with their patients, he said.

But the plaintiffs -- three individual doctors and the Florida chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians -- alleged the law is "so vague, overbroad, and ambiguous" and the penalties so harsh that doctors will steer clear of any discussion of gun safety with their patients.

Physicians who violate the law risk losing their medical licenses and face fines up to $10,000 per offense, according to the complaint.

The suit, filed by lawyers with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and law firms including Ropes & Gray, named Governor Rick Scott and four other state health officials as defendants and requested an injunction blocking the state from enforcing the law.

Just as pediatricians have long advised parents on the best ways to reduce the risks of harm to children from household poisons, unsupervised swimming pools and riding bikes without safety helmets, they also have advised them how to best protect their kids from the lethal danger of firearms. The fact is that more than forty percent of gun-owning households with children and teens store their guns unlocked and one quarter of those homes store them loaded. These loaded, unsecured guns are like ticking time bombs, posing a clear and present danger to young people. In 2007, 138 children and teens were killed in unintentional shootings; in 2008, almost 4,000 were wounded. Indeed, the rate of unintentional firearm death for children 14 years and younger is nine times higher in the U.S. than in twenty-five other industrialized countries combined.

The presence of easily-accessible guns in the home also increases the risk of adolescent suicide. Each day, two American teenagers commit suicide with guns, the vast majority with their parents' gun. More than ninety percent of suicide attempts with guns are fatal, whereas the fatality rate for attempts with drugs or cutting is around three percent. Unsecured guns in the home have cost thousands of young lives, as they transform momentary adolescent depressions, over romantic break-ups or bad grades, into unspeakable tragedies.

Because of these well-established risks, the American Academy of Pediatrics has long recommended advising parents that firearms should be removed from homes with children or, if parents choose to have guns in the home, they should be stored unloaded, locked and separate from ammunition. For homes with adolescents, AAP also has recommended that practitioners inform parents that guns in the home are particularly dangerous because of the potential for impulsive use by teens, resulting in suicide, homicide or unintentional injury.

I would think the NRA would support responsible gun ownership and safety and even supply doctors with free literature. This law is such a knee-jerk reaction from nut jobs who are too stupid to even recognize that keeping people from shooting themselves is in their own political party's best interests.

Another reason why it makes sense for physicians to discuss guns with patients and why Gov. Scott, once again, got this law wrong (that prohibits physicians and other healthcare providers) from having conversations about guns with patients, except in very narrowly defined circumstances) ---- but, what else is new:

I belong to another MB where this has been hashed to death; in that case, the OP is a fire-brand "fiscal conservative/social moderate" (whatever the fuck that even means) who claims to be more Libertarian than anything else. The way I framed the issue, which has stopped him cold in his tracks, is that I couldn't understand why a "Libertarian social moderate" would have any interest in upping the ante on The Drug War.

His first response was some lameo-assed pontification about "taxpayer funds", but when I reiterated that I found his support for an escalation for a greater police presence within at-risk demographics and the inherent prohibitionism in his approach reprehensible, he clutched pearls and refuses to respond.

Make no mistake about it: this escalation of The Drug War will help no one and cost much more than it saves. It's a piece of disgusting teabaggery dressed up as a "feel-good" measure for the vilest of his base.

As to drug testing here in FL: it was only after my fourth interview with a large local privately-owned furniture retail chain that I was informed that I'd be responsible for the cost of my own drug test. I almost went (it would have been completely clean), but when they balked at paying me a $500 draw while expecting me to commute from FtL to Boca every day, I walked

Logged

Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

"fiscal conservative/social moderate" (whatever the fuck that even means)

It means that on fiscal issues you hold a conservative viewpoint and on social issues you hold a moderate viewpoint.

The problem is that the term "fiscal conservative" has been co-opted, often unknowingly, by the fiscally ignorant -- people who do not know the difference between an expense and an investment, people who think budget deficits are fine if their party controls the branches of government but not when the other party does, people who believe in the myth that a fiscally stable organization targets annual balanced budgets instead of targeting long term balance or surplus...

The fact that the fiscally ignorant describe themselves as fiscally conservative makes it difficult to know what the fuck it means when someone self-identifies as fiscally conservative.

The problem is that the term "fiscal conservative" has been co-opted, often unknowingly, by the fiscally ignorant -- people who do not know the difference between an expense and an investment, people who think budget deficits are fine if their party controls the branches of government but not when the other party does, people who believe in the myth that a fiscally stable organization targets annual balanced budgets instead of targeting long term balance or surplus...

The fact that the fiscally ignorant describe themselves as fiscally conservative makes it difficult to know what the fuck it means when someone self-identifies as fiscally conservative.

Oh definitely. I laugh when Republicans are touted as the party of fiscal responsibility considering that their mantra is lowering taxes and they've gotten us involved in multiple pointless wars. Fiscally responsible my ass. As much as I want universal healthcare to be a reality in this country I have absolutely no idea how we're going to pay for it without raising taxes by a large margin. To help achieve that goal defense spending needs to be cut considerably, but this is a time in history when we need to be taking our cues from the British who are aggressively reducing their deficit while still providing healthcare to their citizenry.

As much as I want universal healthcare to be a reality in this country I have absolutely no idea how we're going to pay for it without raising taxes by a large margin. To help achieve that goal defense spending needs to be cut considerably, but this is a time in history when we need to be taking our cues from the British who are aggressively reducing their deficit while still providing healthcare to their citizenry.

The facts on the ground are that the British are actually seeing that reducing government during a downturn prolongs the downturn. Fiscal responsibility means countering the effects of a recession -- not accelerating them. The time for tax increases and less government is when times are good, not when they are bad.

As far as paying for healthcare, the US government currently pays half the cost of healthcare anyway. (A little over half this past year). Since the US spends 50% to 100% more of its gross domestic product per capita than countries with systems that have better health outcomes, it is not at all clear that we need to increase taxes to provide universal healthcare. Politically, it is hard to make the sort of sweeping changes that would be needed to get to a better healthcare system -- but it is VERY difficult to argue that the resulting system would cost more than the inefficient, patchwork quality system we have today.

Report: Welfare drug tests costing Florida taxpayers moneyThe numbers show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs at an average of $35 per screening. The state's net loss was $45,780.

The numbers show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs at an average of $35 per screening. The state's net loss was $45,780.Last Updated: Thursday, April 19, 2012 @ 12:12PM

Requiring drug tests for welfare applicants is costing Florida taxpayers more than it saves, according to new data released this week.

According to Bay News 9's partner paper, the Tampa Bay Times, a little more than 100 out of 4,000 applicants failed the tests.

The numbers show that taxpayers spent $118,140 to reimburse people for drug test costs at an average of $35 per screening. The state's net loss was $45,780.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida is suing the state over the program. It won a temporary ban on the tests in October.

The court results could have nationwide consequences. Since Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill into law, 25 other states have considered similar test requirements.

Perhaps they will get rid of this law now. However, I really doubt it. If you're going to drug test to qualify for state funds, then anyone (including company employees where the company gets a state contract or tax break/incentive) who gets state funds should have to do a drug test.